High Risk Series:

Asset Forfeiture Programs

(Letter Report, 02/95, GAO/HR-95-7).

In 1990, GAO began a special effort to identify federal programs at high

risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. GAO issued a series of

reports in December 1992 on the fundamental causes of the problems in

the high-risk areas. This report on asset forfeiture programs is part

of the second series that updates the status of this high-risk area.

Readers have the following three options in ordering the high-risk

series: (1) request any of the individual reports in the series,

including the Overview (HR-95-1), the Guide (HR-95-2), or any of the 10

issue area reports; (2) request the Overview and the Guide as a package

(HR-95-21SET); or (3) request the entire series as a package

(HR-95-20SET).

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

REPORTNUM: HR-95-7

TITLE: High Risk Series: Asset Forfeiture Programs

DATE: 02/01/95

SUBJECT: Assets

Inventory control systems

Customs administration

Law enforcement

Federal property management

Interagency relations

Search and seizure

Surplus federal property

Property disposal

Law enforcement agencies

IDENTIFIER: DOJ National Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Program

Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund

DOJ Assets Forfeiture Fund

Customs Forfeiture Fund

National Performance Review

DOJ/Treasury Consolidated Asset Tracking System

Customs Service Seized Asset Program

High Risk Series 1995

**************************************************************************

* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *

* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *

* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *

* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *

* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *

* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *

* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *

* numbers of the printed product. *

* *

* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *

* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *

* those in the printed version. *

* *

* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *

* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *

* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *

* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *

* for printed documents at this time. *

**************************************************************************

Cover

================================================================ COVER

High-Risk Series

February 1995

ASSET FORFEITURE PROGRAMS

GAO/HR-95-7

Asset Forfeiture Programs

Abbreviations

=============================================================== ABBREV

Letter

=============================================================== LETTER

February 1995

The President of the Senate

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

In 1990, the General Accounting Office began a special effort to

review and report on the federal program areas we considered high

risk because they were especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse,

and mismanagement. This effort, which has been strongly supported by

the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight, brought much needed focus to

problems that were costing the government billions of dollars.

In December 1992, we issued a series of reports on the fundamental

causes of problems in designated high-risk areas. We are updating

the status of our high-risk program in this second series. Our

Overview report (GAO/HR-95-1) discusses progress made in many areas,

stresses the need for further action to address remaining critical

problems, and introduces newly designated high-risk areas. This

second series also includes a Quick Reference Guide (GAO/HR-95-2)

that covers all 18 high-risk areas we have tracked over the past few

years, and separate reports that detail continuing significant

problems and resolution actions needed in 10 areas.

This report discusses the asset forfeiture programs of the

Departments of Justice and the Treasury. It describes the progress

made in the management of seized and forfeited property since our

December 1992 report. The value of seized property inventories has

grown from a reported $33 million in 1979 to almost $2 billion in

1994. Over the years, Justice and Treasury have transformed their

problem-ridden seized property programs into more businesslike

operations. However, some significant problems remain with seized

property management. In recent years, interest in the asset

forfeiture programs has extended beyond property management to

questioning whether forfeiture laws are applied appropriately and

effectively and consideration of how forfeiture proceeds should be

used. This report focuses on the most recent program changes made

and highlights areas needing sustained management attention.

Copies of this report series are being sent to the President, the

Republican and Democratic leadership of the Congress, congressional

committee chairs and ranking minority members, all other members of

the Congress, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,

the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Treasury.

Charles A. Bowsher

Comptroller General

of the United States

OVERVIEW

============================================================ Chapter 0

For more than 200 years, the federal government has had the authority

to take property through forfeiture. Beginning about 1980, the

number and value of seizures started growing dramatically as law

enforcement agencies began relying more heavily on forfeiture to

fight drug traffickers and other organized crime figures. The

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 expanded the government's

seizure authority and established forfeiture funds within the

departments of Justice and the Treasury.\1 Recently, asset forfeiture

laws were expanded to cover crimes associated with money laundering

and certain financial institutions-related offenses. Collectively,

enforcement actions associated with these changes have resulted in

the value of Justice's and Treasury's seized property inventories

growing from a reported $33 million in 1979 to almost $2 billion in

1994.

THE PROBLEM

As asset forfeiture programs grew in the 1980s, our attention was

focused primarily on the management of seized and forfeited property.

We found that property was not being properly cared for after it was

seized, resulting in lost revenue to the government when the property

was sold. Much has been accomplished in this area since the 1980s.

However, some significant problems remain with seized property

management, and continued oversight is necessary. Also, the

departments of Justice and the Treasury continue to operate two

similar but separate seized asset management and disposal programs

without plans for consolidation, despite legislation requiring them

to develop a plan to consolidate postseizure administration of

certain properties.\2

In recent years, interest in the asset forfeiture programs has

extended beyond asset management to questioning whether forfeiture

laws are applied appropriately and effectively and consideration of

how forfeiture proceeds should be used.

PROGRESS

In our December 1992 high-risk report on asset forfeiture programs,

we reported that major operational problems relating to the

management and disposition of seized and forfeited property had been

identified and corrective actions were being initiated. However,

although some management and systems changes have improved program

operations, our recent audits of the Customs Service's fiscal year

1992 and 1993 financial statements revealed serious weaknesses in key

internal controls and systems, which affected Customs' ability to

control, manage, and report the results of its seizure efforts,

including accountability and stewardship over property seized. As a

result, tons of illegal drugs and millions of dollars in cash and

other property have been vulnerable to theft and misappropriation.

Customs recognizes the need for long-term and systematic

improvements, and its Commissioner established a senior management

task force to review the seized property program in its entirety.

Actions are being taken to address the internal control and systems

problems; however, many of these efforts are in various stages of

development.

Problems also persist with the Marshals Service's maintenance and

disposal of seized and forfeited property, according to recent

Department of Justice Office of Inspector General audit reports.

These audits show the need for continued emphasis on and vigilance

over seized property management.

We also reported in December 1992 that Justice and Treasury were

pursuing an initiative for consolidating postseizure management of

noncash seized property inventories. Legislation enacted in 1988

required them to develop a plan to consolidate postseizure

administration of certain properties. Furthermore, in June 1991, we

identified substantial savings that could be realized through merging

postseizure noncash property management functions. Although a small

scale pilot project for consolidation was in effect from October 1992

through September 1993, no significant progress has been made toward

consolidation. Since eliminating duplicate programs is one of the

Vice President's National Performance Review goals, Justice and

Treasury should aggressively pursue options for efficiency gains

through program consolidation.

Our December 1992 high-risk report also highlighted growing interest

in the forfeiture programs regarding the appropriate application of

the asset forfeiture laws. In 1993, the Supreme Court issued three

decisions that more clearly define the appropriate use of asset

forfeiture authority. Also, several bills were proposed in the last

Congress to put tighter controls on forfeiture. The departments of

Justice and the Treasury have each taken several actions in an effort

to strengthen the integrity of the asset forfeiture program,

including implementing new policy guidance intended to ensure that

law enforcement agencies do not become overzealous in their use of

the asset forfeiture laws or become too dependent on the funds

derived from seizures.

OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE

The two agencies with custodial responsibilities for seized property,

the Marshals Service for Justice and the Customs Service for

Treasury, have made improvements in seized property management and

disposition over the years. However, significant problems remain and

continued oversight is necessary to ensure policies and procedures

are followed and adequate safeguards are in place. In addition,

Justice and Treasury should aggressively pursue options for

efficiency gains through program consolidation. We will continue to

monitor seized property management activities.

Much attention has been focused on the appropriate application of the

asset forfeiture laws. It is too soon to tell whether the recent

actions taken by Justice and Treasury will provide sufficient

safeguards against improper seizures. Ensuring that adequate

safeguards are in place and adhered to will require considerable

forfeiture program management attention and oversight in the future.

--------------------

\1 The funds were originally created within the Department of Justice

and U.S. Customs Service. The Congress established the Department

of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund in October 1992 to supersede the

Customs Fund.

\2 The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 21

U.S.C. 887 (1988).

BACKGROUND

============================================================ Chapter 1

Asset forfeiture programs were intended to (1) punish and deter

criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used or acquired

through illegal activities and (2) make seized property available as

assets to strengthen law enforcement. Seized and forfeited property

can be cash, bank accounts, automobiles, boats, airplanes, jewelry,

art objects, or real estate. Justice and Treasury also seize

thousands of tons of illegal drugs and counterfeit items that have no

resale value to the federal government. These items are typically

held by the agencies until they are approved for destruction.

Although the government has had forfeiture authority for over 200

years, it was rarely utilized as a law enforcement tool until the

1980s. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 expanded

forfeiture authority and established asset forfeiture funds within

the Department of Justice and the U.S. Customs Service to hold the

proceeds of forfeitures and to finance program-related expenses (for

example, property management expenses) as well as certain law

enforcement activities, such as the payment of rewards for

information related to asset seizure and training directly related to

the asset forfeiture program.

Until recently, Treasury law enforcement agencies other than Customs

(the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Criminal Investigation

Division of the Internal Revenue Service; and the U.S. Secret

Service) participated in the Justice Fund. In October 1992, the

Congress created the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to supersede the

Customs Fund.\3 The Treasury agencies that previously participated in

the Justice Fund began making deposits into the Treasury Fund in

October 1993. Figure 1 shows the two fund receipts for the years

they have been in operation.

Figure 1: Forfeiture Fund

Receipts, Fiscal Years 1985

Through 1994

(See figure in printed

edition.)

Sources: Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and U.S.

Customs Service.

These funds have always collected more than the allowable expenses

that could be charged against them.\4 Year-end surpluses in the

Justice Fund have historically been used for law enforcement

purposes, such as building prisons, hiring U.S. Attorney office

personnel, or funding special activities through the Office of

National Drug Control Policy. Year-end surpluses in the Customs Fund

were transferred to the general fund of the Treasury. Beginning in

fiscal year 1995, the year-end surpluses in the Treasury Forfeiture

Fund will be available to the Secretary of the Treasury for any law

enforcement activity of a federal agency.

Asset forfeiture legislation authorizes Justice and Treasury to share

forfeiture proceeds with state and local law enforcement agencies and

foreign governments that participate in law enforcement efforts

leading to seizure and forfeiture. From fiscal years 1986 through

1994, Justice and Treasury shared over $1.4 billion and $394 million,

respectively, in forfeited property and cash with over 3,000 state

and local law enforcement agencies.

As the forfeiture programs grew in the 1980s, Justice and Customs

experienced significant problems with asset management and

disposition. However, as the programs matured, the agencies gained

more control of them. Improvements made in the areas of seized

property management and management information systems were discussed

in our December 1992 high-risk report. For example, in 1987 Justice

and Customs established policies designed to minimize the unnecessary

holding of seized cash. Also, legislation enacted in 1990 subjects

the funds to annual financial audits. These audits have been done

each year since 1990. However, problems remain with property

management and, therefore, continual oversight is necessary. One

issue that still has not been resolved is the consolidation of

Justice's and Treasury's seized property management functions.

--------------------

\3 Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-393, 31

U.S.C. 9703 (1992).

\4 Allowable expenses exclude certain costs such as salaries and

benefits of seizing agents which are borne by the seizing agency.

PROGRESS AND CONTINUING CONCERNS

============================================================ Chapter 2

In December 1992, we reported on the status of the asset forfeiture

programs and progress made as well as emerging issues. The following

examples describe the progress that has been made since that time,

and the key continuing concerns.

SEIZED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

PROBLEMS REMAIN

Our fiscal year 1992 and 1993 financial statement audits of the U.S.

Customs Service revealed inadequate safeguards over, and incomplete

and inaccurate accounting and reporting of, seized property. Customs

is taking steps to address these problems; however, these efforts are

in various stages of development.

Customs conducted its first nationwide physical inventory of seized

property, drugs, and currency in February 1994. As a result of this

inventory, Customs was able to identify and correct many significant

errors in the recorded quantities and values of seized property.

This effort was also intended to establish an accurate baseline for

monitoring and reporting activity that results from Customs'

enforcement efforts. However, some Customs locations did not

effectively perform all of the inventory procedures. As a result,

reported seized property balances included erroneous values.

Customs has also undertaken significant efforts to strengthen

safeguards at its storage locations. Specifically, it has performed

a study and evaluation of the adequacy of its physical safeguards

over seized property and currency at 21 medium-to-high volume storage

facilities. In addition, Customs constructed new facilities in two

districts and has plans for renovation at other facilities.

While these efforts are commendable, Customs must establish and

implement additional policies and procedures, such as periodically

summarizing and assessing the results of its seizure efforts for a

period of time, and make significant enhancements to its seized

property tracking system to ensure proper accountability for and

stewardship over seized property. In addition, a significant and

sustained effort by Customs management will be required to ensure

that established policies and procedures and planned improvements are

properly implemented. Otherwise, Customs' ability to report reliable

financial information and effectively carry out its seizure program

will continue to be diminished. Also, tons of illegal drugs and

millions of dollars in currency and other property will remain

vulnerable to theft and misappropriation.

Problems also persist with the Marshals Service's maintenance and

disposal of seized and forfeited property, according to recent

Justice Department Office of Inspector General reports. In March

1993, the Inspector General reported mismanagement by contractors

hired by the Marshals Service to maintain and dispose of property,

resulting in excessive costs and lost revenues of almost $2.8 million

in six districts. Two and a half million dollars of the excessive

costs and lost revenue resulted from a lack of effective Marshals

Service oversight of real property management contracts. For

example, the Marshals Service failed to detect improper payments for

property taxes, attorney fees, and title insurance. In March 1994,

the Inspector General reported that the Marshals Service was not

disposing of forfeited property expeditiously, allowing property to

deteriorate, thus resulting in lost revenue. The Marshals Service

has initiated various actions to address these problems, such as

revising procurement policies, conducting contract management reviews

at certain districts, and providing additional training to seized

assets management staff, according to the Inspector General.

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CONSOLIDATION

EFFORTS UNSUCCESSFUL

In an effort to address duplication of effort, one of the provisions

of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 required the Attorney General and

the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and maintain a joint plan to

coordinate and consolidate postseizure administration of property

seized for drug-related offenses. In June 1991, we recommended

consolidating the management and disposition of all noncash seized

properties, designating the Marshals Service as the custodian. We

estimated program administration costs could be reduced 11 percent

annually if Justice and Customs consolidated the postseizure

management and disposition of such items. We also reported that

consolidation would likely result in lower contractor costs due to

economies of scale.

Consolidation efforts to date have been unsuccessful. The Marshals

Service and Customs entered into a memorandum of understanding in

October 1992 for a 1-year small scale pilot consolidation project

whereby the Marshals Service managed and disposed of Customs' real

property and Customs managed and disposed of vessels for the Marshals

Service at four districts. A total of 52 properties were involved in

the pilot project, which dissolved at the end of the 1-year period.

No cost analysis or evaluation of the effectiveness of the project

was done. There are no future plans for consolidation of asset

management and disposition functions at this time.

We still believe that consolidation of asset management and

disposition functions makes sense. Both agencies seize similar types

of property that is generally located in the same geographic areas.

However, under the current operating structure, each agency maintains

a separate and distinct program for managing and disposing of its

property. Justice, through the Marshals Service, contracts directly

with vendors that provide the service. Treasury, through the Customs

Service, has a nationwide contractor that provides custodial services

either directly or through subcontracts with other vendors.

DUPLICATE ASSET FORFEITURE FUNDS

AND PROGRAMS

We see areas of possible duplication between the two funds and

programs that extend beyond property management and disposition

activities, to include forfeiture fund administration and management.

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund structure essentially mirrors that of

the Justice Fund. Both funds have their own management, operations

staff, custodial agencies (Marshals Service and Customs), and

contractors to maintain and dispose of property. The funds work

closely together to develop policies that minimize variations in

forfeiture procedures and operations. Although the funds coordinate

closely, the existence of two separate funds has the potential for

unnecessary duplication. For example, each department recently

issued its own set of very similar program guidance.

On the other hand, Justice and Treasury are pursuing consolidation of

asset tracking systems. Both departments have agreed to develop,

implement, manage, operate, enhance, and support a Consolidated Asset

Tracking System (CATS). CATS is intended to be the primary automated

system for asset tracking and management used by all agencies

participating in both the Justice and Treasury asset forfeiture

programs.

CATS would make it possible to track the entire life cycle of an

asset from seizure, through forfeiture, to disposal. The system

would avoid the duplicate data entry that occurs due to the various

participating components having incompatible systems. With all

participating agencies using the same system, any user of CATS would

have available the current status and processing details for any

asset, regardless of which agency entered the information. CATS is

being pilot tested, with participation from all Justice and Treasury

agencies, except Customs. Customs plans to begin looking at the

feasibility of CATS participation in the near future. The success of

a single automated tracking system is dependent on the participation

of all agencies, including Customs. We encourage Justice and

Treasury to continue to identify areas of duplication and pursue

options for consolidation, such as their efforts with CATS.

IMPROVED GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF

SHARED ASSETS

Continuing this consolidation theme, in July 1992 we concluded that

because state and local law enforcement agencies often see the

Justice and Customs asset sharing programs as one, the programs

should have the same guidelines, with the same interpretations of

appropriate asset use. Officials in some state and local agencies

found the guidance vague and confusing, with Justice and Customs

allowing different uses of shared proceeds despite having similar

program policies. We recommended that Justice and Customs issue

joint guidelines for asset sharing with clear, specific definitions

for concepts such as "law enforcement purposes" and "supplanting of

resources."

Joint guidelines have not been issued. However, Treasury and Justice

issued separate sets of revised and mutually agreeable asset sharing

guidance in October 1993 and March 1994, respectively. The clarified

guidance is intended to significantly reduce state and local law

enforcement agency confusion about appropriate uses of shared assets

and should lead to fewer improper uses of assets.

EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN SAFEGUARDS

AGAINST IMPROPER SEIZURES

As discussed in our 1992 high-risk report, increasing concerns have

been voiced by Members of Congress, the media, and law enforcement

officials about the potential for abuse of the property interests of

innocent owners and third parties in the asset seizure/forfeiture

process. Because revenue generation is one of the clearly

articulated goals of the forfeiture program, concerns have also been

expressed that law enforcement agencies may have a vested interest in

receiving the proceeds of forfeitures and that this interest could

influence law enforcement priorities.

Furthermore, in 1993 the Supreme Court issued three decisions that

have more clearly defined the appropriate use of asset seizure and

forfeiture authority. For example, in Austin v. United States, 113

S. Ct. 2801 (1993), the Court concluded that the challenged

forfeiture constituted punishment and thus was subject to the

limitations of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to

the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines

requires that there be a relationship between the seriousness of an

offense and the property that is taken.

Several bills were proposed in the last Congress that would have

significantly affected the forfeiture programs. For example, one

bill mandated that certain forfeiture proceedings be conducted only

upon the conviction of the property owner for the relevant crime.

That bill also required that a portion of the forfeiture proceeds be

used for community based crime control programs.

The Department of Justice is also concerned about any appearance of

conflict of interest or overzealous use of seizure and forfeiture

laws. Justice has taken several actions to address these concerns.

To provide leadership to state and local law enforcement agencies,

Justice issued a National Code of Professional Conduct for Asset

Forfeiture officials. Justice also initiated a project to coordinate

and expand federal forfeiture training in an effort to ensure that

state and local law enforcement agencies are in full compliance with

constitutional and statutory limitations on seizure and forfeiture.

The departments of Justice and the Treasury have implemented new

policy guidance to strengthen the integrity of the asset forfeiture

program. For example, to minimize any adverse effects of forfeiture

on innocent persons, Justice and Treasury issued new policies and

procedures that require expedited notice to owners of seized property

and payments to lienholders. Justice also proposed regulations in

June 1994 that would clarify when innocent persons whose property is

used by others for criminal purposes are entitled to relief.

FURTHER ACTION NEEDED

============================================================ Chapter 3

The asset forfeiture programs continue to remain highly visible, as

evidenced by the recent policy guidance and proposed regulations as

well as numerous proposed changes to forfeiture legislation. Justice

and Treasury have made many improvements to their asset forfeiture

programs over the years. However, enhancements to seized property

tracking systems and development and implementation of additional

policies and procedures are needed to help ensure adequate

accountability and stewardship over seized property. In addition,

continued oversight will be required to ensure that existing policies

and procedures and planned improvement efforts are properly

implemented. We will continue to monitor seized property management

activities.

Possible duplication of resources within the two forfeiture funds and

programs is of particular interest in light of budget constraints.

Justice and Treasury should aggressively pursue options for

efficiency gains through consolidation.

Although significant problems remain with seized property management,

some of the attention has shifted toward concerns about law

enforcement agencies becoming overzealous in their use of the asset

forfeiture laws or too dependent on the funds derived from such

seizures. It is too soon to judge the effectiveness of the recent

efforts taken by Justice and Treasury to strengthen safeguards

against improper seizures. Our future work will include keeping

abreast of these efforts and assessing any future legislative

changes.

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

============================================================ Chapter 4

Financial Audits: CFO Implementation at IRS and Customs

(GAO/T-AIMD-94-164, July 28, 1994).

Restitution, Fines, and Forfeiture: Issues for Further Review and

Oversight (GAO/T-GGD-94-178, June 28, 1994).

Financial Audit: Examination of Customs' Fiscal Year 1993 Financial

Statements (GAO/AIMD-94-119, June 15, 1994).

Financial Management: Customs' Accountability for Seized Property

and Special Operation Advances Was Weak (GAO/AIMD-94-6, Nov. 22,

1993).

Financial Management: First Financial Audits of IRS and Customs

Revealed Serious Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3, August 4, 1993).

Financial Audit: Examination of Customs' Fiscal Year 1992 Financial

Statements (GAO/AIMD-93-3, June 30, 1993).

High-Risk Series: Asset Forfeiture Programs (GAO/HR-93-17, Dec. 6,

1992).

Tax Administration: IRS's Management of Seized Assets

(GAO/T-GGD-92-65, Sept. 24, 1992).

Asset Forfeiture: Improved Guidance Needed for Use of Shared Assets

(GAO/GGD-92-115, July 16, 1992).

Asset Forfeiture: U.S. Marshals Service Internal Control Weaknesses

Over Cash Distributions (GAO/GGD-92-59, May 8, 1992).

Asset Forfeiture: Customs Reports Improved Controls Over Sales of

Forfeited Property (GAO/GGD-91-127, Sept. 25, 1991).

Asset Forfeiture: Noncash Property Should Be Consolidated Under the

Marshals Service (GAO/GGD-91-97, June 28, 1991).

Asset Forfeiture: Need for Stronger Marshals Service Oversight of

Commercial Real Property (GAO/GGD-91-82, May 31, 1991).

Asset Forfeiture: Opportunities for Savings Through Program

Consolidation (GAO/T-GGD-91-22, Apr. 25, 1991).

Asset Forfeiture: Opportunities to Improve Program Administration

(GAO/T-GGD-91-16, Mar. 13, 1991).

Oversight Hearings on Asset Forfeiture Programs (GAO/T-GGD-90-56,

July 24, 1990).

Asset Forfeiture: Legislation Needed to Improve Cash Processing and

Financial Reporting (GAO/GGD-90-94, June 19, 1990).

Asset Forfeiture: Helping Finance the War on Drugs (GAO/GGD-90-01VR,

Oct. 1989).

Profitability of Customs Forfeiture Program Can Be Enhanced

(GAO/T-GGD-90-1, Oct. 10, 1989).

Asset Forfeiture: An Update (GAO/T-GGD-89-17, Apr. 24, 1989).

Asset Forfeiture Programs: Progress and Problems (GAO/T-GGD-88-41,

June 23, 1988).

Asset Forfeiture Programs: Corrective Actions Underway But

Additional Improvements Needed (GAO/T-GGD-88-16, Mar. 4, 1988).

Seized Conveyances: Justice and Customs Correction of Previous

Conveyance Management Problems (GAO/GGD-88-30, Feb. 3, 1988).

Real Property Seizure and Disposal Program Improvements Needed

(GAO/T-GGD-87-28, Sept. 25, 1987).

Asset Forfeiture Funds: Changes Needed to Enhance Congressional

Oversight (GAO/T-GGD-87-27, Sept. 25, 1987).

Millions of Dollars in Seized Cash Can Be Deposited Faster

(GAO/T-GGD-87-7, Mar. 13, 1987).

Drug Enforcement Administration's Use of Forfeited Personal Property

(GAO/GGD-87-20, Dec. 10, 1986).

Customs' Management of Seized and Forfeited Cars, Boats, and Planes

(Testimony, Apr. 3, 1986).

Improved Management Processes Would Enhance Justice's Operations

(GAO/GGD-86-12, Mar. 14, 1986).

Better Care and Disposal of Seized Cars, Boats, and Planes Should

Save Money and Benefit Law Enforcement (GAO/PLRD-83-94, July 15,

1983).

Asset Forfeiture: A Seldom Used Tool in Combatting Drug Trafficking

(GAO/GGD-81-51, Apr. 10, 1981).

1995 HIGH-RISK SERIES

============================================================ Chapter 5

An Overview (GAO/HR-95-1)

Quick Reference Guide (GAO/HR-95-2)

Defense Contract Management (GAO/HR-95-3)

Defense Weapons Systems Acquisition (GAO/HR-95-4)

Defense Inventory Management (GAO/HR-95-5)

Internal Revenue Service Receivables (GAO/HR-95-6)

Asset Forfeiture Programs (GAO/HR-95-7)

Medicare Claims (GAO/HR-95-8)

Farm Loan Programs (GAO/HR-95-9)

Student Financial Aid (GAO/HR-95-10)

Department of Housing and Urban Development (GAO/HR-95-11)

Superfund Program Management (GAO/HR-95-12)

The entire series of 12 high-risk reports can be ordered by using the

order number GAO/HR-95-20SET.